Archive for October 2014
Local authorities inundated with applications for Deprivation of Liberties authorisations after Supreme Court decision
I covered the Supreme Court decision on Deprivation of Liberties in the West Cheshire and other cases earlier in the year. Just an update: there is evidence of adult social services teams of an inundation of cases which can only mean that people in residential care and receiving home care are getting their rights better looked after, although it’s clear there are problems. One commentator on the Community Care website argues that this decision enshrines social work values in the law, although possibly many other professions also value respect for autonomy among vulnerable people.
Link to the Supreme Court decision
Link to ‘Community Care’ article.
A good summary of the legal effect of the decision is provided by the Mental Health Law Online website, as follows:
(1) The ‘acid test’ for deprivation of liberty is whether the person is under continuous supervision and control and is not free to leave. (2) The following are not relevant: (a) the person’s compliance or lack of objection; (b) the relative normality of the placement (whatever the comparison made); and (c) the reason or purpose behind a particular placement. (3) Because of the extreme vulnerability of people like P, MIG and MEG, decision-makers should err on the side of caution in deciding what constitutes a deprivation of liberty.
The MHLO website also has loads of relevant links to other cases and to commentary:
Link to Mental health Law Online website.
This includes a link to the video of Lady Hale announcing the decision in the Supreme Court, which itself is an admirably clear account of the decision and why it’s important.
Continuing healthcare judicial reviews: assess very carefully
I’ve not been looking at continuing healthcare recently – this is the process of assessing people for NHS funding rather than social care funding of care packages, and involves what is now a Clinical Commissioning Group deciding that someone has a difficult to provide-for healthcare need, rather than a social care need. It is particularly relevant to end-of-life care, since many patients will met the criteria.
There are two recent judicial reviews. The Dennison case was a retrospective case, where a relative appealed for belated payments after the death of the patient. The result was partially positive, the reason being that the assessor had not fully completed to assessment; they needed to complete the comments boxes and make a clear assessment of need. Nurses usually do this job, and this tells you that you need to train them well and they have to be very literate and thoughtful about how they complete the forms; the implications, both for the CCG and the relatives, of awarding Continuing Healthcare are such that this is never a routine or tickbox exercise.
The Whapples case was about whether the CCG could insist that other alternatives should be looked at. The answer was ‘yes’. This case was partly about suitable housing, but I find this interesting because my experience is that adult social care departments often insist on a continuing healthcare assessment if they think there’s any prospect of an award, before they will look at a community care assessment.